This film is OK. Don't listen to the whingers and whiners complaining about this movie not being like the book or Nicolas Roeg's 1990 film.
A few pertinent points follow.
Roald Dahl hated Roeg's (who I much admire as a director) version. So I don't quite understand all the keyboard warriors out there, calling the 1990 film a classic adaption of the book, because it simply wasn't.
The switching of locations from Europe to Alabama works really well imo. I actually found the first half of the movie, before the action moves to the hotel, particularly compelling. Let me just add on here that Octavia Spencer playing Agatha the grandmother is very good.
I really don't quite comprehend the extent of the criticism of the special effects. They were more than adequate and perhaps I just need to remind critics that this is a Robert Zemeckis movie. Robert Zemickis simply doesn't do bad/cheap CGI. That's not an opinion, that's a recognised fact.
Similarly I don't subscribe to the criticism aimed at Anne Hathaway. She made an excellent Grand High Witch. What's with all this overacting babble emanating from the pointy heads? Let's not forget this is primarily a kids' movie and designed to be both funny and suspenseful. Anne Hathaway was expected to give an over the top performance and be always central to and dominating the scenes she is in. That's the nature of the beast. I don't think the vast majority of the viewing audience were expecting to see some sort of female rendition of Voldemort. She was meant to be a scene - chewing, scary, funny character and I think she succeeded.
Ignore the naysayers. Apart from the switching of locales, this film adaption is closer to Dahl's book, than Roeg's, which is arguably the primary reason The Witches was remade in the first place. I think this is a decent attempt. I liked the atmosphere of the first half best. The second half set in the hotel, becomes more of your typical kids' thrills, spills, chase movie.
A few pertinent points follow.
Roald Dahl hated Roeg's (who I much admire as a director) version. So I don't quite understand all the keyboard warriors out there, calling the 1990 film a classic adaption of the book, because it simply wasn't.
The switching of locations from Europe to Alabama works really well imo. I actually found the first half of the movie, before the action moves to the hotel, particularly compelling. Let me just add on here that Octavia Spencer playing Agatha the grandmother is very good.
I really don't quite comprehend the extent of the criticism of the special effects. They were more than adequate and perhaps I just need to remind critics that this is a Robert Zemeckis movie. Robert Zemickis simply doesn't do bad/cheap CGI. That's not an opinion, that's a recognised fact.
Similarly I don't subscribe to the criticism aimed at Anne Hathaway. She made an excellent Grand High Witch. What's with all this overacting babble emanating from the pointy heads? Let's not forget this is primarily a kids' movie and designed to be both funny and suspenseful. Anne Hathaway was expected to give an over the top performance and be always central to and dominating the scenes she is in. That's the nature of the beast. I don't think the vast majority of the viewing audience were expecting to see some sort of female rendition of Voldemort. She was meant to be a scene - chewing, scary, funny character and I think she succeeded.
Ignore the naysayers. Apart from the switching of locales, this film adaption is closer to Dahl's book, than Roeg's, which is arguably the primary reason The Witches was remade in the first place. I think this is a decent attempt. I liked the atmosphere of the first half best. The second half set in the hotel, becomes more of your typical kids' thrills, spills, chase movie.